The most important statistic mentioned is light drinkers have a reduction in all-cause mortality compared to non-drinkers. While heavy drinkers or binge drinkers have an increase.
It’s a critical statistic that all of these sensationalist headlines fail to account for or even analyze.
Heavy drinkers is not what you think it is.
The effect of “light” drinkers is due to poor sampling effect of non drinkers, who are both rare and often have other health issues. Repeated studies show no amount of intake is beneficial.
IIRC that effect is more a result of bad categorization rather than light alcohol use actually being correlated with lower mortality.
People who used to be heavy drinkers and who have since quit get put in the “non drinkere” category, but because they used to drink heavily their mortality is still impacted even after they stop. You don’t suddenly get a good liver after 10 years of tearing it apart after all.
So the “non-drinkers” category has an artificially worse mortality than the light drinkers.
At the end of the day the body breaks alcohol down into some carcinogens. No amount of that is good for you.
It’s a decent argument but it’s not supported in the data.
Now I am going to have to dig up that study from China. They had a sample size of over 1 million people with repeated blood draws, medical history and a full alcohol use history. It showed the same all-mortality curve for non-drinkers (never consumed) versus light drinkers.
What’s interesting is heavy drinkers who quit reverted back close to the never consumed level after like 5 years.
I swear I had it saved to my zotero account but I can’t find it. I will keep looking.
Bottom line: ethanol under the right dosage reduces cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The amount of reduction more than compensates for its risks of creating other diseases like cancer. However the negative effects of over-consumption make it unethical for any medical professional to recommend non-drinkers to start drinking. If you choose to drink, 1-2 drinks per day depending on sex and weight is the hard limit.
The blood thinning effect of alcohol has been dismissed by several studies, it’s a cause of many types of heart disease. The problem is people lie about intake, and the teetotlers and typically ex alcoholics.
Ethanol is a toxin, it effects mitochondrial efficiency at incredibly low levels. Huge risk factor for dementia.
Also be careful of regional studies like the large Chinese cohort because a lot of effects are due to genetics. Bad epidemiology had people convinced fish oil would would prevent heart disease because of one study in inuit that failed to consider genetics.
Most fully alcohol-attributable diseases require heavy drinking, either occasionally (e.g. alcohol poisoning) or chronically (most chronic disease categories linked to alcohol).
But, “Everything in moderation.”, and “The dose makes the poison.”
Go ahead and counter with this ancient “wisdom”, then continue to drink. It’s your body, you don’t need to justify how you abuse it to anyone.
I am still waiting for someone to refudate this analysis. So far, I have yet to see one even close. It’s one of the best I have seen.
https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.04.089
The most important statistic mentioned is light drinkers have a reduction in all-cause mortality compared to non-drinkers. While heavy drinkers or binge drinkers have an increase.
It’s a critical statistic that all of these sensationalist headlines fail to account for or even analyze.
Heavy drinkers is not what you think it is. The effect of “light” drinkers is due to poor sampling effect of non drinkers, who are both rare and often have other health issues. Repeated studies show no amount of intake is beneficial.
IIRC that effect is more a result of bad categorization rather than light alcohol use actually being correlated with lower mortality.
People who used to be heavy drinkers and who have since quit get put in the “non drinkere” category, but because they used to drink heavily their mortality is still impacted even after they stop. You don’t suddenly get a good liver after 10 years of tearing it apart after all.
So the “non-drinkers” category has an artificially worse mortality than the light drinkers.
At the end of the day the body breaks alcohol down into some carcinogens. No amount of that is good for you.
It’s a decent argument but it’s not supported in the data.
Now I am going to have to dig up that study from China. They had a sample size of over 1 million people with repeated blood draws, medical history and a full alcohol use history. It showed the same all-mortality curve for non-drinkers (never consumed) versus light drinkers.
What’s interesting is heavy drinkers who quit reverted back close to the never consumed level after like 5 years.
I swear I had it saved to my zotero account but I can’t find it. I will keep looking.
Bottom line: ethanol under the right dosage reduces cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The amount of reduction more than compensates for its risks of creating other diseases like cancer. However the negative effects of over-consumption make it unethical for any medical professional to recommend non-drinkers to start drinking. If you choose to drink, 1-2 drinks per day depending on sex and weight is the hard limit.
2 drinks a day is a heavy drinker.
The blood thinning effect of alcohol has been dismissed by several studies, it’s a cause of many types of heart disease. The problem is people lie about intake, and the teetotlers and typically ex alcoholics.
Ethanol is a toxin, it effects mitochondrial efficiency at incredibly low levels. Huge risk factor for dementia.
Also be careful of regional studies like the large Chinese cohort because a lot of effects are due to genetics. Bad epidemiology had people convinced fish oil would would prevent heart disease because of one study in inuit that failed to consider genetics.
There is no safe amount of alcohol.
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health
Speaking of terrible studies. The one you linked is absolutely terrible.
Have you read of the actual paper. Their conclusions are absolutely not supported by the evidence and their methodology is statistically invalid.
You’re not wrong. From the study:
The way I read it, the commenter does not believe moderation prevents harm. Hence the “wisdom” in quotes. But they’re for the freedom to self-“abuse.”